Jag sitter och skriver magister-uppsats. Jag skrattar mycket åt denna vändning i vad jag just skrivit (och SC är alltså scalar consequentialism, den moralteori jag behandlar):
McElwee makes a stronger claim against SC on this basis, viz. that SC deprives moral discussion of an interesting category when ruling out right action as a fundamental moral fact. McElwee is correct in his claim that right action is interesting to talk about, this is probably why so much moral discussion has been concerned with figuring out which actions are right and which are not. Another thing I think is interesting is vampires. What would life be like if I were to live forever? Would it be better to eat the blood of beasts than of human being? This might be as interesting as can be, but that doesn’t make it important.
Jag argumenterar ju som en gud, måste jag säga. Nä, nu måste jag skärpa mig och argumentera ordentligt. Men jag låter nog vampyrgrejen vara kvar tills vidare. Jag blir ju glad av den.